Now I know that Alfred Wegener`s theory is wrong!

Great images, p! I had been trying to find similar images, but just haven't had the time to invest in the search. And silly me, I ignored that website because it's primarily interested in placer deposits.I've been confused about Aspevik's gold veins as well. No one has been able to pin him down on whether he thinks gold only occurs as veins on the surface of the earth or whether those veins eventually are eroded or re-mobilized in the subsurface by intrusions and then ultimately deposited as secondary deposits, for example as VMS, metamorphic, sedimentary, intrusion-related, which normally are primary deposits.Just like the oil and gas industry, the minerals industry also uses the mainstream tectonic and paleogeographic models (thanks for the link!) to explore for mineral deposits. Edge can confirm. It's not just a matter of looking for the right rocks, we're looking for the right depositional environments, tectonic settings, metallogenic provinces, etc. and they change depending on the time period. Heck even the types of ore deposits change over time. As you know, it's a fairly involved and complicated system of research, but it works very well. Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Yes, but that was before the advent of plate tectonic theory.We know that impacts can cause partial melting and some result in substantial metals concentrations (e.g., Sudbury, Bushveld(?)), but these are typically fairly localized effects. As far as I know even the effects of the Vredefort impact structure, the largest and second oldest (at 2+ billion years -- and older than yours!) known impact structure in the world, don't extend far beyond the Wit basin or the tip of South Africa. Unless you know differently...There is also some indication that the shock wave of an extremely powerful bolide impacts may result in an antipodal effect, such as volcanic activity.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

That's what I have been telling you for several posts now. You've been plotting active mines (and prospects - Peru) operated by COMPANY called Gold Fields Limited, not the largest gold mines in the world. Again, you are choosing the deposits that fit your model.Why not choose the Precambrian or the Paleozoic deposits since those fit your time frame better? Because those don't fit your model??? The Cenozoic didn't start until 65 Ma. Additionally, the shape of the continents today is not at all representative of the shape of the continents during the Precambrian.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Actually, Aspevik, you do. Not just gold mines, but all ore deposits. Plate tectonic theory as we understand and accept it today, does a good job of explaining the locations of ore deposits, as well as non-metallic resources.You have to take all aspects of geology into account as a test of your model. If the facts and observations don't fit your model, your model is wrong.

Have you had occasion to study Rodinia and Pannotia? I think you will find the configuration of the continents interesting.

Just out of curiosity, what are the processes or events that resulted in this alignment? I know you suggest some impact caused this alignment, but how?

This is what I was going to get at later. First I wanted to know how the impact affected the location of Ediacara fossils. The only thing I can think of is that Asp is thinking he's marking the locations of the deaths, burials, lithification, and subsequent exposure of these trace fossils -- all occurring in the exact same geographic location. Obviously, geologists know this is highly unlikely.

You still haven't answered the question as to what those fossil locations have to do with the impact. Do you have any geochem or stratigraphic evidence for this impact?

Says who? Relative dating methods based on fossils and stratigraphy were developed LONG before continental drift theory was fully developed. Plate tectonics, however, is one of many lines of evidence that independently validated the method and its findings. Impacts leave evidence behind and geologists are quite adept at recognizing those features in the field. What is your evidence for any of your alleged impacts? What about plate tectonics theory? Have you read it? It will explain how you get marine rocks on tops of mountains. Seriously, Asp. Let's not go down that road, too. It's apparent your theory has a multitude of problems. Don't fault the geologists for that.Edited by roxrkool, : Clarification

This in incorrect. You have fossil evidence from that time do you not? Then you should have impact related evidence as well.An impact does not have to be very large to leave not only a scar at the impact site, but debris and geochemical signatures on land surfaces. Your alleged impact sounds like it would have been one of the largest over at least the last 550 million years, therefore you should find something. Very likely you'd find impact-related evidence somewhere in the vicinity of the death horizon of Edicaran fossils.Without that evidence and tying it to your impact site, you're going to have a hard time gaining support for just the impact, much less anything else.

Aspevik, you are wrong. You SHOULD find some evidence of the impact if it occurred. You have dead Ediacara life forms apparently from the same time period. Obviously that ocean sediment wasn't destroyed.I am telling you that such a massive impact would cause a massive amount of ejecta to fly up into the atmosphere, which will in turn fall back to the earth. This ejecta will not simply fall back into the ocean basin(s), but will litter not only the surrounding ocean basin, but the nearby land masses -- unless you say that there were no nearby land masses... However, the iridium and other chemical signatures common to meteorite impacts can make it even further, possibly even around the entire planet.It's entirely possible to miss the evidence, particularly if people are not specifically looking for it, but you cannot dismiss it out of hand. If your impact happened, it left evidence someplace. Since you are tying it to an extinction event, it should be easier to find since you know which rocks to look in (i.e., rocks containing Ediacaran life and located just below Cambrian rocks).I can't remember if the end of the Precambrian is also thought to be associated with an extinction event by mainstream geologists, but if it is, and say some evidence of a bolide impact is found, you still have to tie it to your impact.

I don't think that is true. Perhaps for a few rare individuals and those probably do not have a science degree. Once you start studying, you realize quickly how much more there is to learn and that there is no way you will every be able to learn it all -- despite the desire. There is nothing more humbling, in my opinion, than getting a science degree. We may or may not believe strongly in any one theory, but as long as it works and is modifiable, we keep using it. If it starts failing our needs and observations, or if someone presents something that works better, then we'll look to change things.

That's what I've been asking. No answer yet.What do you think, A, can you offer an explanation as to why those Ediacaran fossil locations should be aligned along a circular path?And how do you explain the outliers?

You do not understand the nature of age dating. There are various sources of errors in radiometric dating, including instrumental, methodological, and with the sample media itself. That's why all age-dating results are important to the geologist, regardless if they confirm any expected age dates or not. Even the outliers tell us something. Therefore, no data are thrown out despite what the critics say.The geoscience community from around the world accepts radiometric age dating. The only people who do not, are those whose own research is not supported by the age dating methods.

The only link I saw was one by YOUNG EARTH proponents whose objective it is to discredit age-dating methods because it contradicts and invalidates their theory of a 6,000 year old earth. They are kooks.You are better off reading mainstream, peer-reviewed technical papers or books on the subject.